Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38501 

The Coast Guard will enforce the 

safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.151 on 

the specified dates and times as 

indicated in tables above. If the event is 

delayed by inclement weather, the 

regulation will be enforced on the rain 

date indicated in tables above. These 

regulations were published in the 

Federal Register on February 10, 2012 

(77 FR 6954). 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.151, The fireworks displays and 

swimming events listed above in DATES

are established as safety zones. During 

these enforcement periods, persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, mooring, or 

anchoring within the safety zones 

unless they receive permission from the 

COTP or designated representative. 

This rule is issued under authority of 

33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In 

addition to this rule in the Federal 

Register, the Coast Guard will provide 

the maritime community with advance 

notification of this enforcement period 

via the Local Notice to Mariners or 

marine information broadcasts. If the 

COTP determines that a regulated area 

need not be enforced for the full 

duration stated in this notice, a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be 

used to grant general permission to 

enter the regulated area. 

Dated: June 14, 2012. 

J.M. Vojvodich, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15823 Filed 6–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0936; FRL–9692–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Georgia; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of a revision to the Georgia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Georgia 

through the Georgia Department of 

Environmental Protection Division (GA 

EPD) on February 11, 2010, as 

supplemented November 19, 2010 

(hereafter also referred to as ‘‘Georgia’s 

regional haze SIP’’). Georgia’s SIP 

revisions address regional haze for the 

first implementation period. 

Specifically, these SIP revisions address 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (national parks and 

wilderness areas) caused by emissions 

of air pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of 

Georgia’s SIP revisions to implement the 

regional haze requirements on the basis 

that these SIP revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Georgia SIP. In a separate 

action published on June 7, 2012, EPA 

proposed a limited disapproval of these 

same SIP revisions because of the 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP arising from the remand by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA 

of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective July 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0936. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

III. What is the effect of this final action? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds. Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. PM2.5 can also cause 

serious health effects and mortality in 

humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR 

80084. These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38502 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In a separate action published on June 7, 2012 

(77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval 

of the Georgia regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP 

submittal arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze requirements. Also, in 

that June 7, 2012, action, EPA finalized a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Georgia to address 

the deficiencies that resulted from the State’s 

reliance on CAIR for their regional haze SIP. 

2See footnote 6 in the Commenter’s March 28, 

2012, letter for a full description. 

3 In the final BART Guidelines rulemaking on 

July 6, 2005, EPA addressed similar comments 

related to CAIR and made the determination that 

CAIR makes greater reasonable progress than BART 

for certain EGUs and pollutants (70 FR 39138– 

39143). EPA did not reopen comment on this issue 

through this rulemaking. 

(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

On February 11, 2010, as 

supplemented November 19, 2010, GA 

EPD submitted revisions to Georgia’s 

SIP to address regional haze in the 

State’s and other states’ Class I areas. On 

February 27, 2012, EPA published an 

action proposing a limited approval of 

Georgia’s regional haze SIP revision to 

address the first implementation period 

for regional haze.1 See 77 FR 11452. EPA 

proposed a limited approval of Georgia’s 

SIP revisions to implement the regional 

haze requirements for Georgia on the 

basis that these revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Georgia SIP. See section 

II of this rulemaking for a summary of 

the comments received on the proposed 

actions and EPA’s responses to these 

comments. Detailed background 

information and EPA’s rationale for the 

proposed action is provided in EPA’s 

February 27, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking. See 77 FR 11452. 

Following the remand of CAIR, EPA 

issued a new rule in 2011 to address the 

interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in 

the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport 

Rule,’’ also known as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). On December 

30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the 

trading programs in the Transport Rule 

would achieve greater reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

than would Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) in the states in 

which the Transport Rule applies 

(including Georgia). See 76 FR 82219. 

Based on this proposed finding, EPA 

also proposed to revise the RHR to allow 

states to substitute participation in the 

trading programs under the Transport 

Rule for source-specific BART. EPA 

finalized this finding and RHR revision 

on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). 

Also on December 30, 2011, the DC 

Circuit stayed the Transport Rule 

(including the provisions that would 

have sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs) 

and instructed the EPA to continue to 

administer CAIR pending the outcome 

of the court’s decision on the petitions 

for review challenging the Transport 

Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11– 

1302. 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

EPA received 928 sets of comments 

on the February 27, 2012, rulemaking 

proposing a limited approval of 

Georgia’s regional haze SIP revision. 

Specifically, the comments were 

received from the National Parks 

Conservation Association (NPCA) (on 

behalf of NPCA, Friends of the 

Chattahoochee, and GreenLaw) and 

from various individuals through NPCA 

(927 emails identical in substantive 

content). Full sets of the comments 

provided by all of the aforementioned 

entities (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Commenter’’) are provided in the docket 

for today’s final action. A summary of 

the comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter does not 

believe that EPA’s proposal to replace 

Georgia’s reliance on CAIR with a 

reliance on CSAPR to satisfy BART for 

SO2 and NOX is credible. The 

Commenter incorporates by reference 

comments that it submitted to EPA on 

February 28, 2012, regarding the 

Agency’s December 30, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking to find that the Transport 

Rule is ‘‘Better than BART’’ and to use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for Georgia through a FIP. See 76 

FR 82219. The Commenter enclosed one 

of the comment letters that it submitted 

to EPA on February 28, 2012, and a 

comment letter that it submitted to EPA 

on March 22, 2012, on the Agency’s 

proposed February 21, 2012, direct final 

rule adjusting several 2012 and 2014 

budgets in the Transport Rule (see 77 FR 

10342). The Commenter restates several 

of its comments on those rulemaking 

actions, including the following: EPA’s 

proposed December 30, 2011, ‘‘Better 

than BART’’ rule is inconsistent with 

the CAA and does not provide 

reasonable progress as required by the 

RHR; EPA cannot rely on the Transport 

Rule because the DC Circuit has 

indefinitely stayed the rule; EPA has not 

complied with the CAA’s statutory 

requirements for a BART exemption; 

EPA has failed to make a state-by-state 

demonstration that CSAPR is better than 

BART; EPA included fatal 

methodological flaws in its proposed 

‘‘Better than BART’’ determination;2

EPA failed to account for the 

geographical and temporal uncertainties 

in emissions reductions inherent in a 

cap-and-trade program such as the 

Transport Rule; EPA’s ‘‘Better than 

BART’’ analysis overstates the air 

quality benefits provided by the 

Transport Rule; EPA failed to consider 

that while allowances are issued for a 

given year, sources are under no 

obligation to ration the allowances out 

over the year; neither Georgia nor EPA 

has demonstrated that Transport Rule is 

‘‘better than BART’’ as applied to 

Georgia; EPA failed to evaluate whether 

exempting Georgia electric generating 

units (EGUs) from BART complies with 

the CAA’s reasonable progress mandate; 

and the changes to Georgia’s CSAPR 

emission budget increase the likelihood 

that CSAPR will not achieve greater 

reasonable progress than BART at many 

Class I areas. The Commenter contends 

that these ‘‘shortcomings * * * impede 

the Agency’s ability to finalize the 

proposed partial FIP or the proposed 

limited SIP approval for Georgia. 

Instead EPA must rectify these 

shortcomings and issue a proper federal 

plan in its place.’’ 

Response 1: The comments regarding 

the alleged ‘‘shortcomings’’ in EPA’s 

proposed ‘‘Better than BART’’ rule are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In 

today’s action, EPA is finalizing a 

limited approval of Georgia’s regional 

haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find 

that participation in the Transport Rule 

is an alternative to BART in this action 

nor did EPA reopen discussions on the 

CAIR provisions as they relate to 

BART.3 As noted above, EPA proposed 

to find that the Transport Rule is ‘‘Better 

than BART’’ and to use the Transport 

Rule as an alternative to BART for 

Georgia in a separate action on 

December 30, 2011, and the Commenter 

is merely reiterating and incorporating 

its comments on that separate action. 

EPA addressed the Commenter’s 

February 28, 2012, comments 

concerning the Transport Rule as a 

BART alternative in a final action that 

was published on June 7, 2012, and has 

determined that they do not affect the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38503 

4Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (‘‘1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum’’) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

5See EPA, Response to Comments Document, 

Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing 

Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, 

Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal 

Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219; December 30, 

2011), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729 

(May 30, 2012), pages 49–51 (noting that EPA 

‘‘disagree[s] with comments that we cannot evaluate 

the BART requirements in isolation from the 

reasonable progress requirements. We have on 

several occasions undertaken evaluations of a 

state’s BART determination or promulgated a FIP 

separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP 

as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.’’). 

Agency’s ability to issue a limited 

approval of Georgia’s regional haze SIP. 

EPA’s responses to these comments can 

be found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0729 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comment 2: The Commenter asserts 

that EPA does not have the authority 

under the CAA to issue a limited 

approval of Georgia’s regional haze SIP. 

The Commenter contends that section 

110(k) of the Act only allows EPA to 

fully approve, partially approve and 

partially disapprove, conditionally 

approve, or fully disapprove a SIP. 

Response 2: As discussed in the 

September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum 

cited in the proposed rulemaking,4

although section 110(k) of the CAA may 

not expressly provide authority for 

limited approvals, the plain language of 

section 301(a) does provide ‘‘gapfilling’’ authority authorizing the 

Agency to ‘‘prescribe such regulations 

as are necessary to carry out’’ EPA’s 

CAA functions. EPA may rely on section 

301(a) in conjunction with the Agency’s 

SIP approval authority in section 

110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals 

where it has determined that a submittal 

strengthens a given state SIP and that 

the provisions meeting the applicable 

requirements of the Act are not 

separable from the provisions that do 

not meet the Act’s requirements. EPA 

has adopted the limited approval 

approach numerous times in SIP actions 

across the nation over the last twenty 

years. A limited approval action is 

appropriate here because EPA has 

determined that Georgia’s SIP revision 

addressing regional haze, as a whole, 

strengthen the State’s SIP and because 

the provisions in the Georgia regional 

haze SIP are not separable. 

The Commenter asserts that EPA’s 

action ‘‘directly contradicts the plain 

language of the Clean Air Act’’ and cites 

several federal appellate court decisions 

to support its contention that section 

110(k) of the Act limits EPA to a full 

approval, ‘‘a conditional approval, a 

partial approval and disapproval, or a 

full disapproval.’’ However, adopting 

the Commenter’s position would ignore 

section 301 and violate the 

‘‘ ‘fundamental canon of statutory 

construction that the words of a statute 

must be read in their context and with 

a view to their place in the overall 

statutory scheme’ * * *. A court must 

therefore interpret the statute ‘as a 

symmetrical and coherent regulatory 

scheme,’ * * * and ‘fit, if possible, all 

parts into an harmonious whole.’ ’’ FDA 

v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 

529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davis 

v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 

803, 809 (1989), Gustafson v. Alloyd 

Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and FTC 

v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 

389 (1959)). Furthermore, the cases 

cited by the Commenter did not involve 

challenges to a limited approval 

approach, and one of the cases, 

Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th 

Cir. 1988) predates the 1990 CAA 

amendments enacting section 110(k). 

Comment 3: The Commenter asserts 

that the proposed limited approval 

violates the CAA and RHR because EPA 

failed to evaluate or determine whether 

exempting Georgia’s EGUs from BART 

complies with the Act’s reasonable 

progress mandate. The Commenter 

supports its position by repeating 

statements made in its February 28, 

2012, comments on the Agency’s 

proposed December 30, 2011, 

rulemaking to find that the Transport 

Rule is ‘‘Better than BART’’ and to use 

the Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for Georgia and other states 

subject to the Transport Rule. For 

example, the Commenter states that 

because [a]ll required components of a 

Regional Haze SIP or FIP affect each 

other, are part of a ‘single administrative 

action’ and must be evaluated together,’’ 

EPA’s ‘‘failure to consider together the 

proposed alternative BART program, the 

long-term strategy and reasonable 

progress goals in Georgia’s SIP violates 

the Clean Air Act and RHR and is 

arbitrary and capricious.’’ 

Response 3: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 1, today’s action 

does not address reliance on CAIR or 

CSAPR to satisfy BART requirements. 

Comments related to the approvability 

of CAIR or CSAPR for the Georgia 

regional haze SIP are therefore beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking and were 

addressed by EPA in a separate action 

published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 

33642). EPA addressed the Commenter’s 

repeated statements regarding the 

interrelatedness of BART, the long-term 

strategy (LTS), and reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) in that final rulemaking 

action and those responses support this 

limited approval action.5

EPA believes that the Commenter 

overstates the overarching nature of the 

changes due to CAIR or CSAPR. The 

basis for the assertion that GA EPD 

exempted EGUs from NOX BART and 

that it in some way affected the 

reasonable progress determinations for 

other sources is not clear. The reliance 

on CAIR in the Georgia submittal was 

consistent with EPA policy at the time 

the submittal was prepared. CSAPR is a 

replacement for CAIR, addressing the 

same regional EGU emissions, with 

many similar regulatory attributes. The 

need to address changes to the LTS 

resulting from the replacement of CAIR 

with CSAPR was acknowledged in the 

proposal, and as stated in the proposal, 

EPA believes the five-year progress 

report is the appropriate time to address 

any changes to the RPG demonstration 

and, if necessary, the LTS. EPA expects 

that this demonstration will address the 

impacts on the RPG due to the 

replacement of CAIR with CSAPR as 

well as other adjustments to the 

projected 2018 emissions due to 

updated information on the emissions 

for other sources and source categories. 

If this assessment determines an 

adjustment to the regional haze plan is 

necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP 

revision within a year of the five-year 

progress report. 

Comment 4: The Commenter contends 

that the BART determination for 

Interstate Paper is inadequate. 

Specifically, for the power boiler, the 

Commenter does not believe that the 

permit language limits the emissions 

from the power boiler since the permit 

allows for the use of fuel oil during 

times of natural gas curtailment and for 

the burning of non-condensable gases 

(NCG) when two other units are down, 

but does not adequately define or place 

limits on the duration of such events or 

the emissions that result. The 

Commenter states that the BART 

determination was also used 

inappropriately to allow the facility to 

avoid Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) review for 

modifications to the Recovery Furnace 

and Paper Machine intended to increase 

production. The Commenter is 

concerned that at all three of these 

units, EPA proposes to approve no 

additional emissions controls for some 

pollutants but does not specify an 

appropriately stringent limit for the 

existing emissions. Finally, the 

Commenter believes there are a number 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38504 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, EPA Memorandum from Joseph 

Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, 

OAQPS, to Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 

4, July 19, 2006, located at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf. 7EPA’s BART Guidelines. See 70 FR 39164. 

of errors in the BART determination for 

this source including: assuming a low 

removal efficiency for selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) (80 percent instead of 

90 percent); lack of technical, quantified 

justification for dismissing SCR as 

technically infeasible for the Recovery 

Boiler; and prematurely removing 

controls from examination based on 

economic factors alone. 

Response 4: The Commenter 

overstates the scope and impact of the 

exemptions from the use of natural gas 

to address natural gas curtailments or 

for the burning of NCGs. EPA regards 

these exemptions as acceptable in this 

circumstance as permitted. Natural gas 

curtailment is commonly understood to 

be a forced reduction in service below 

contracted-for levels in response to 

inadequate pipeline capacity or 

inadequate natural gas supplies, both of 

which are beyond the control of the user 

(see, e.g., 40 CFR 60.7575; Georgia Air 

Quality Control Rules 391–3–1- 

.02(rrr)(5)). Examples of situations that 

may trigger curtailment are hurricane 

damage to supplies or extreme cold 

weather requiring allocation of natural 

supplies to priority needs such as 

homes and hospitals. With regard to the 

NCG exemption, the power boiler, along 

with the lime kiln, is used as a backup 

control device to burn NCGs from other 

operations at the mill. The power boiler 

can only burn NCGs when the lime kiln 

(primary NCG control device) and the 

multi-fuel boiler (secondary NCG 

control device) are out-of-service. Both 

the latter two sources have existing SO2

control devices on their exhaust 

streams. The current title V permit 

limits the SO2 from NCG combustion to 

less than 40 tons per year. Although 

actual emissions are expected to be 

much less, this limit was used in the 

modeling of the impacts of this source 

for BART. 

Regarding any relationship between 

the BART determination and PSD 

requirements, decisions on PSD 

applicability are subject to separate 

provisions of the CAA and are therefore 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

With regard the existing emissions 

limits, all other emissions limits used in 

assessing the impact of the facility are 

contained in the title V permit and are 

appropriately stringent. Finally, with 

regard to the ‘‘flaws’’ cited in the BART 

determination, EPA finds that the 

analysis was conducted in accordance 

with the Guidelines for BART 

Determinations Under the Regional 

Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 

51 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) and that the State 

appropriately considered the statutory 

factors. Additional NOX controls were 

not considered (e.g., SCR) as BART due 

to the relatively small benefit to 

visibility from these controls. 

Comment 5: The Commenter believes 

that the PM BART determination for 

Georgia Power—Plant Bowen is 

inadequate, that Georgia did not 

demonstrate the appropriateness of only 

evaluating PM BART for EGUs, and that 

the State did not evaluate the impact of 

PM for a number of EGUs that are more 

appropriately considered subject to 

BART than Plant Bowen. The 

Commenter expressed the following 

concerns with the proposed BART 

determination: It concludes that no 

additional controls are needed, and 

therefore does not require an emissions 

limit; it must reflect filterable and 

condensable PM; not all feasible control 

options were evaluated (e.g., fabric 

filters); the cost estimates and cost 

effectiveness values were overestimated; 

and control options that involve 

improvements to existing controls were 

not completely addressed. 

Response 5: Plant Bowen is subject to 

emissions limits, and the PM emissions 

limits from its electrostatic precipitator 

(ESP) are identified in the facility’s title 

V permit. Furthermore, all PM was 

considered in the BART determination; 

each evaluated control option in 

Georgia’s regional haze SIP considered 

the contribution of total PM10 and PM2.5

(as a subset of the total PM10) as well as 

condensable PM (primarily sulfuric acid 

mist) (see Appendix H.8 of Georgia’s 

February 2010 regional haze SIP 

submittal). The installed controls on 

both facilities are effective at reducing 

filterable and condensable particulates. 

Regarding modeling in Georgia’s 

regional haze SIP that uses PM only for 

its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA previously 

determined that this approach is 

appropriate for EGUs where the State 

proposed to rely on CAIR to satisfy the 

BART requirements for SO2 and NOX.6

Regarding the need to assess all 

feasible control options, including 

improvements to existing controls, as is 

stated in EPA’s BART Guidelines, 

available retrofit control options are 

those air pollution control technologies 

with a practical potential for application 

to the emissions unit and the regulated 

pollutant under evaluation. In 

identifying ‘‘all’’ options, a state must 

identify the most stringent option and a 

reasonable set of options for analysis 

that reflects a comprehensive list of 

available technologies. It is not 

necessary to list all permutations of 

available control levels that exist for a 

given technology; the list is complete if 

it includes the maximum level of 

control that each technology is capable 

of achieving.7 In this instance, each of 

the EGU’s PM emissions is already 

controlled by ESPs and wet flue gas 

desulphurization (FGD), (SO2 scrubbers) 

which were installed on Plant Bowen 

between 2008 and 2010. Georgia Power 

identified the following four potential 

additional control technologies: (a) High 

voltage power conditioners (juice cans); 

(b) particle agglomerators; (c) the 

combination of juice cans and particle 

agglomerators; and (d) a wet ESP. Wet 

ESPs are the only control option that 

resulted in a modeled visibility 

improvement greater than 0.01 

deciview. Wet ESPs were predicted to 

improve visibility by approximately 

0.14 to 0.16 deciview for each unit at a 

cost effectiveness of $37,107 to $47,909 

per ton. In addition, the wet ESP would 

consume additional electricity and have 

non-air environmental impacts. The 

combination high voltage power 

conditioner (juice can);/particle 

agglomerator option modeled a visibility 

benefit of 0.01 deciview for each unit at 

a cost effectiveness of $12,222 to 

$21,914 per ton SO2. 

While the adjustments to the cost 

analyses suggested by the Commenter 

would lower the cost effectiveness of 

the options evaluated, the suggested 

changes would not be large enough to 

change the BART determination. The 

State evaluated the cost effectiveness, 

visibility impacts, and energy and nonair environmental impacts of these 

control options. GA EPD determined 

that no additional control was 

reasonable for BART for this facility and 

EPA agrees with this determination. 

EPA finds the BART determination for 

Plant Bowen was conducted in a 

manner consistent with EPA guidance. 

Comment 6: The Commenter states 

that due to its reliance on CAIR (and 

now CSAPR), Georgia failed to evaluate 

numerous sources that contribute 

significantly to visibility impairment at 

the Cohutta Wilderness Area (Cohutta). 

The Commenter also states that none of 

the CAIR or CSAPR sources have a 

completed BART determination for NOX

or SO2 since CSAPR allocations are not 

determined on an assessment of many of 

the same factors that must be addressed 

in establishing the RPG. Because of this, 

the Commenter states that neither 

Georgia nor EPA has determined 

whether additional progress at Cohutta 

would be reasonable based on the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38505 

8 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

Under the Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L.Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10, 

page 4–2. 9 Id. at pages 1.3–1.4. 

statutory factors, and this responsibility 

cannot be excused simply because 

Cohutta may meet the URP. The 

Commenter also believes that Georgia 

and EPA excused the No. 4 boiler at the 

Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard Mill 

from additional control based on the 

predicted ability to meet the URP at 

Cohutta, despite identifying otherwise 

cost-effective control options, and that 

this decision does not fulfill the State’s 

obligation to go beyond the URP in 

evaluating reasonable progress and in 

establishing RPGs. 

Response 6: The State’s reliance on 

CAIR was consistent with EPA guidance 

and has been addressed through the 

limited disapproval June 7, 2012, final 

action. The Commenter’s concerns 

regarding CSAPR were also addressed in 

that June 7, 2012, rulemaking. Any 

differences in the RPGs that result from 

the reliance on CAIR will be addressed 

in the five-year review. 

Regarding the Temple-Inland Rome 

Linerboard Mill, as was stated in the 

proposal (77 FR 11468) and in EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance,8 the 

states have wide latitude to determine 

appropriate additional control 

requirements for ensuring reasonable 

progress, and there are many ways for 

a state to approach identification of 

additional reasonable measures. States 

must consider the four statutory factors, 

at a minimum, in determining 

reasonable progress, but states have 

flexibility in how to take these factors 

into consideration. GA EPD’s reasonable 

progress control analysis reviewed: (a) 

Two wet FGD configurations 

(magnesium enhanced lime) and 

limestone forced oxidation; (b) dry FGD 

(lime absorbent); (c) fuel switching; and 

(d) dry sorbent injection. The State 

determined that none of the control 

options considered for Power Boiler 4 is 

reasonable at this time. A key factor in 

determining what was considered 

‘‘reasonable’’ for reasonable progress 

requirements for this source is that the 

improvement in visibility from the 

emissions controls evaluated ranged 

from 0.11 to 0.17 inverse megameters at 

the affected Class I areas impacted by 

this unit. The State determined, and 

EPA agrees, that none of the control 

options considered for Power Boiler 1 is 

reasonable given the predicted visibility 

improvement. 

Regarding the need to go beyond the 

URP analysis when establishing RPGs, 

EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP 

is not a ‘‘presumptive target;’’ rather, it 

is an analytical requirement for setting 

RPGs. See 64 FR 35731, 35732, July 1, 

1999. In determining RPGs for Georgia’s 

Class I areas, the State identified sources 

through its area of influence 

methodology for reasonable progress 

control evaluation and described those 

evaluations in its SIP. Thus, the State 

went beyond the URP analysis to 

identify and evaluate sources for 

potential control under reasonable 

progress in accordance with EPA 

regulations and guidance. 

Comment 7: According to the 

Commenter, additional reasonable 

progress is necessary at the Wolf Island 

and Okefenokee Wilderness Areas, 

where the URP is not predicted to be 

met. The Commenter states that Georgia 

has a responsibility to ensure that all 

necessary emissions reductions take 

place and must show that its RPGs are 

reasonable based on the evaluation of 

any potentially affected sources. The 

Commenter regards Georgia’s efforts to 

only evaluate sources that contributed 

to visibility impairment from SO2 over 

a certain threshold as inadequate. The 

Commenter recommends that EPA 

ensure that additional sources, if not all 

contributing sources of all visibilityimpairing pollutants, be evaluated for 

reasonable progress. 

Response 7: EPA’s RHR requires states 

to establish RPGs, measured in 

deciviews, for each mandatory federal 

Class I area for the purpose of improving 

visibility on the haziest days and 

ensuring no degradation in visibility on 

the clearest days over the period of each 

implementation plan. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). RPGs are interim goals that 

represent incremental visibility 

improvement over time toward the goal 

of natural background conditions and 

are developed in consultation with 

other affected states and Federal Land 

Managers. 

The RHR establishes an additional 

analytical requirement for states in the 

process of establishing the RPG. This 

analytical requirement requires states to 

determine the rate of improvement in 

visibility needed to reach natural 

conditions by 2064, and to set each RPG 

taking this ‘‘glidepath’’ into account. 

EPA adopted this approach, in part, to 

ensure that states use a common 

analytical framework that accounts for 

the regional differences affecting 

visibility and, in part, to ensure an 

informed and equitable decision making 

process. The glidepath is not a 

presumptive target, and states may 

establish a RPG that provides for greater, 

lesser, or equivalent visibility 

improvement as that described by the 

glidepath. As noted in EPA guidance, in 

deciding what amount of emissions 

reduction is appropriate in setting the 

RPG, the states may take into account 

the fact that the long-term goal of no 

manmade impairment encompasses 

several implementation periods.9

Consistent with EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance, GA EPD performed 

a detailed analysis to determine which 

sources and emissions most contributed 

to visibility impairment. The conclusion 

of this analysis was that Georgia should 

consider what additional control 

measures for electric utilities and 

industrial boilers are reasonable. GA 

EPD also determined that it was 

appropriate to also consider additional 

control measures from industrial 

sources other than boilers that 

contributed to the same magnitude of 

visibility impairment as boilers, and 

EPA agrees with this determination. 

Under Georgia’s rule, ‘‘Clean Air 

Interstate Rule SO2 Annual Trading 

Program,’’ which incorporates by 

reference all the provisions of EPA’s 

CAIR rule, SO2 emissions from Georgia 

EGUs will be capped at 149,140 tons in 

2015, a 70 percent reduction from 2002 

actual emissions. See Georgia Air 

Quality Control Rules 391–3–1–.02(13). 

For sources that significantly 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I federal areas not 

clearly meeting the URP (such as 

Okefenokee and Wolf Island), GA EPD 

did consider additional controls at 

CAIR-affected units. However, the State 

concluded, based on the four statutory 

factors, that no additional emissions 

reductions beyond CAIR from these 

sources were reasonable for this 

implementation period, and EPA agrees 

with the State’s determination. Expected 

emissions reductions are projected to 

achieve a 3.28 deciviews of 

improvement in visibility at Okefenokee 

and Wolf Island by 2018, while 3.6 

deciviews of improvement in visibility 

would meet URP in 2018. Since the 

Okefenokee and Wolf Island RPGs show 

a slower rate of improvement in 

visibility than the rate that would be 

needed to attain natural conditions by 

2064 (i.e., the URP or glidepath), GA 

EPD estimated that an additional 6–7 

years are needed to attain natural 

conditions. EPA concludes that 

Georgia’s RPGs were developed 

consistent with the RHR and EPA 

guidance. 

Comment 8: The Commenter states 

that in several instances, Georgia’s 

reasonable progress determinations 

relied on the predicted decrease in heat 

input from the subject sources. 

According to the Commenter, this 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38506 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

assumed decrease in heat input cannot 

be relied upon unless it is enforceable. 

Response 8: Georgia’s modeling for 

2018 projects its best estimate of likely 

emissions based on the expected 

capacity utilization at each facility in 

2018, not a worst case based on all 

facilities operating at maximum 

allowable capacity. As part of the 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

air quality modeling, VISTAS, in 

cooperation with the other eastern 

regional planning organizations (RPOs), 

generated future-year emissions 

inventories for the electric generating 

sector of the contiguous United States 

using the Integrated Planning Model 

(IPM). IPM is a dynamic linear 

optimization model that can be used to 

examine air pollution control policies 

for various pollutants throughout the 

contiguous United States for the entire 

electric power system. The dynamic 

nature of IPM enables projection of the 

behavior of the power system over a 

specified future period. The IPM 

considers growth in demand for 

electricity, the construction of new 

units, changes in fuel mix, as well as a 

predicted set of emissions controls 

results in some units projected as 

having greater utilization (and greater 

heat input) while others are projected to 

have less utilization (and less heat 

input). Optimization logic in IPM 

determines the least-cost means of 

meeting electric generation and capacity 

requirements while complying with 

specified constraints including air 

pollution regulations, transmission 

bottlenecks, and plant-specific 

operational constraints. The IPM 

modeling runs took into consideration 

both CAIR implementation and 

Georgia’s rule, ‘‘Multipollutant Control 

for Electric Utility Steam Generating 

Units,’’ requirements for Georgia Power. 

See Georgia Air Quality Control Rules 

391–3–1-.02(2)(sss). EPA regards this as 

an appropriate means to project future 

emissions and changes in visibility. 

The five-year review is a mechanism 

to assure that differences from projected 

emissions are considered and their 

impact on the 2018 RPGs is evaluated. 

In the regional haze program, 

uncertainties associated with modeled 

emissions projections into the future are 

addressed through the requirement 

under the RHR to submit periodic 

progress reports in the form of a SIP 

revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

requires each state to submit a report 

every five years evaluating progress 

toward the RPGs for each mandatory 

Class I area located in the state and for 

each Class I area outside the state that 

may be affected by emissions from the 

state. Since this five-year progress reevaluation is a mandatory requirement, 

it is unnecessary for EPA to take 

additional measures to ‘‘ensure’’ that the 

projections of heat input are legally 

enforceable. In the specific instances 

cited by the Commenter, the State’s 

analysis of projected capacity utilization 

and the resultant heat input and the 

State’s reliance on these projections to 

establish its RPGs meet the 

requirements of the regional haze 

regulations and EPA guidance. 

Comment 9: The Commenter 

expresses concern with the 

interrelationship of EPA’s proposed 

limited disapproval of Georgia’s 

regional haze SIP submittal in the 

December 30, 2011, action proposing to 

find that the Transport Rule is ‘‘Better 

than BART,’’ and EPA’s proposed 

limited approval of the Georgia’s 

regional haze SIP in EPA’s February 27, 

2012 action. The ‘‘Better than BART’’ 

action states that EPA is proposing a 

limited disapproval of the LTS and that 

EPA intends to act on the LTS in a 

separate action whereas the limited 

approval action states that EPA is not 

taking action on Georgia’s regional haze 

SIP insofar as it relied on CAIR, which 

according to the Commenter, 

‘‘presumably includes’’ Georgia’s LTS. 

The Commenter believes that each of 

these actions ‘‘promises that the other 

will provide a [LTS] but neither rule 

actually does * * * underscore[ing] the 

inappropriateness of a ‘limited 

approval.’’’ The Commenter contends 

that the SIP must include an adequate 

LTS that has been subject to public 

notice and comment. The Commenter 

also believes that EPA should 

disapprove Georgia’s regional haze SIP 

because the State’s source retirement 

discussion, required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v) as part of a state’s LTS 

development, was inadequate as it was 

‘‘limited to now out of date information 

describing existing, not future, 

emissions’’ and ‘‘contained little 

discussion of changes in energy and 

other markets and their likely effect on 

EGUs and possibly non-EGUs.’’ 

Response 9: EPA explained in its 

February 27, 2012, action that the 

Agency was proposing a limited 

approval of Georgia’s February 11, 2010, 

SIP revision and November 19, 2010, 

SIP supplement, addressing regional 

haze because these revisions, as a 

whole, strengthen the Georgia SIP. 

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing 

guidance, a limited approval results in 

approval of the entire SIP submittal, 

even of those parts that are deficient and 

prevent EPA from granting a full 

approval of the SIP revision. 

In the February 27 action, EPA also 

explained that the Agency had proposed 

a limited disapproval of the Georgia 

regional haze SIP in the December 30 

‘‘Better than BART’’ rule because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. EPA stated 

that it was not proposing to take action 

in the February 27, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking on issues associated with 

Georgia’s reliance on CAIR in its 

regional haze SIP. The limited approval 

action acted as approval of the entire 

regional haze SIP, including the LTS, 

even though it is deficient due to the 

State’s reliance on CAIR. EPA believes 

that these actions provided sufficient 

notice allowing the public to comment 

on the adequacy of the LTS as 

evidenced by the Commenter’s remarks 

regarding the substance of the State’s 

strategy. 

Regarding the content of the LTS, as 

was discussed in the Georgia SIP 

revisions and in the February 27, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking, Georgia did 

evaluate the potential contributions of 

all anthropogenic sources and 

concluded that the preponderance of the 

visibility impairment was due to 

sulfates. In particular, for Okefenokee 

and Cohutta, sulfate particles resulting 

from SO2 emissions contribute roughly 

69 and 84 percent, respectively, to the 

calculated light extinction on the 

haziest days. In contrast, ammonium 

nitrate contributed five percent or less 

of the calculated light extinction at 

VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent 

worst visibility days. Since sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at the three Georgia Class I 

areas, Georgia concluded that reducing 

SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU 

point sources in the VISTAS states 

would have the greatest visibility 

benefits. 

Georgia considered the factors listed 

in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) to develop its 

LTS as described in detail in the 

proposed rulemaking. Source retirement 

and replacement schedules are 

explicitly part of the emissions 

inventory that is used to project future 

conditions and provide a realistic 

estimate of future visibility impairing 

emissions from the identified sources. 

At the time that the analyses were 

completed, they were based on the best 

information available. The projected 

inventories for 2009 and 2018 account 

for post-2002 emissions reductions from 

promulgated and proposed federal, 

state, local, and site-specific control 

programs. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38507 

10 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. 

For EGUs, the IPM was run to 

estimate emissions of the proposed and 

existing units in 2009 and 2018 based 

on expected future demand. Where 

future demand is projected to exceed 

existing capacity, IPM adds additional 

units. Future fuel type usage at 

individual plants and changes to fuel 

types were modeled based on the 

expected availability of fuels, capability 

of the plant and least cost dispatch 

projections based on expected price and 

control requirements. These results 

were further adjusted based on state and 

local air agencies’ knowledge of planned 

emissions controls at specific EGUs. 

For non-EGUs, VISTAS used recently 

updated growth and control data 

consistent with the data used in EPA’s 

CAIR analyses supplemented by state 

and local air agencies’ data and updated 

forecasts from the U.S. Department of 

Energy. These updates are documented 

in the MACTEC emissions inventory 

report ‘‘Documentation of the 2002 Base 

Year and 2009 and 2018 Projection Year 

Emission Inventories for VISTAS’’ dated 

February 2007 (Appendix C of the 

February 2010 Georgia regional haze SIP 

submittal). 

As explained in the proposed 

rulemaking, these projections can be 

expected to change as additional 

information regarding future conditions 

becomes available. For example, new 

sources may be built, existing sources 

may shut down or modify production in 

response to changed economic 

circumstances, and facilities may 

change their emissions characteristics as 

they install control equipment to 

comply with new rules. To address this, 

the RHR calls for a five-year progress 

review after submittal of the initial 

regional haze plan. The purpose of this 

progress review is to assess the 

effectiveness of emissions management 

strategies in meeting the RPG and to 

provide an assessment of whether 

current implementation strategies are 

sufficient for the state or affected states 

to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, 

based on its assessment, that the RPGs 

for a Class I area will not be met, the 

RHR requires the state to take 

appropriate action. See 40 CFR 

52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate 

action will depend on the basis for the 

state’s conclusion that the current 

strategies are insufficient to meet the 

RPGs. Georgia specifically committed to 

follow this process in the LTS portion 

of its submittal. 

Comment 10: The Commenter states 

that EPA should improve its proposal, 

enforce the regional haze program, fully 

evaluate all emissions control options, 

and require controls that are reasonable, 

efficient, and cost effective to ‘‘clear the 

haze along the Appalachian National 

Scenic Trail and in Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park.’’ The 

Commenter believes that EPA has 

‘‘proposed to exempt’’ Georgia’s oldest 

power plants from ‘‘long-standing 

cleanup requirements in favor of an 

existing program that, in some cases, 

will mean little or no actual cleanup.’’ 

The Commenter also contends that 

sources outside of Georgia contribute to 

regional haze in the aforementioned 

areas and that those sources ‘‘must be 

made responsible.’’ 

Response 10: As discussed in the 

proposed rulemaking action, states have 

discretion in weighing the factors that 

they must consider in evaluating control 

determinations to satisfy BART and 

reasonable progress requirements, and 

EPA finds that Georgia’s determinations 

are consistent with the RHR and EPA 

guidance. EPA did not propose to 

‘‘exempt’’ any Georgia sources from 

regional haze requirements in favor of 

any existing program. As allowed by the 

regional haze regulations at the time, 

Georgia relied on CAIR for some of its 

power plants rather than performing 

source-specific BART evaluations. For 

reasonable progress, Georgia concluded 

that additional EGU control beyond 

CAIR during the first implementation 

period was not reasonable for these 

sources after consideration of the four 

statutory factors for each of the affected 

units. 

Regarding sources outside of Georgia 

and their contribution to visibility 

impairment at Georgia’s Class I areas, as 

discussed in the proposed rulemaking 

(77 FR 11474–11475), Georgia’s regional 

haze SIP satisfies the regional haze 

requirements to identify out-of-state 

sources that cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in the State’s Class 

I areas and documents consultations 

with such states to obtain any 

appropriate emissions reductions. The 

State notes in its SIP that many of these 

sources located in other states are 

subject to control because of CAIR’s 

requirements. 

III. What is the effect of this final 

action? 

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(6), and EPA’s long-standing 

guidance, a limited approval results in 

approval of the entire SIP revision, even 

of those parts that are deficient and 

prevent EPA from granting a full 

approval of the SIP revision.10 Today, 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

Georgia’s February 11, 2010, and 

November 19, 2010, regional haze SIP 

revisions. This limited approval results 

in approval of Georgia’s entire regional 

haze submission and all its elements. 

EPA is taking this approach because 

Georgia’s SIP will be stronger and more 

protective of the environment with the 

implementation of those measures by 

the State and having federal approval 

and enforceability than it would 

without those measures being included 

in its SIP. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

a revision to the Georgia SIP submitted 

by the State of Georgia on February 11, 

2010, as supplemented November 19, 

2010, as meeting some of the applicable 

regional haze requirements as set forth 

in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA 

and in 40 CFR 51.300–308. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons. * * * 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the federal 

SIP approval does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
38508 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 

would constitute federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of state 

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 

U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, EPA must select the 

most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

action does not include a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under state or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 

Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) 

and 12875 (Enhancing the 

Intergovernmental Partnership). 

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications.’’ 

‘‘Policies that have federalism 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

the states, on the relationship between 

the national government and the states, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 28, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 38509 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: June 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 2. Section 52.570, the table in 

paragraph (e) is amended by adding 

entries 34. and 35. in numerical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective date EPA approval date 

*******

34. Regional Haze Plan .................................................................. Statewide ................................... 2/11/10 6/28/12 [Insert citation of publication] 

35. Regional Haze Plan Supplement (including BART and Reasonable Progress emissions limits).Statewide ................................... 11/19/10 6/28/12 [Insert citation of publication] 

[FR Doc. 2012–15691 Filed 6–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785; FRL–9691–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of a revision to the South 

Carolina State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of South 

Carolina through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on 

December 17, 2007. South Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, SIP revision 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Specifically, 

this SIP revision addresses the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of South Carolina’s December 

17, 2007, SIP revision to implement the 

regional haze requirements for South 

Carolina on the basis that this SIP 

revision, as a whole, strengthens the 

South Carolina SIP. Additionally, EPA 

is rescinding the Federal regulations 

previously approved into the South 

Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and 

November 24, 1987, and is approving 

the provisions in South Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, SIP submittal to 

meet the monitoring and long-term 

strategy (LTS) requirements for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (RAVI). In a separate action 

published on June 7, 2012, EPA 

finalized a limited disapproval of this 

same SIP revision because of the 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP revision arising from the remand by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA 

of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective July 30, 2012, except for the 

amendment to § 52.2132, which is 

effective on August 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2009–0785. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

III. What is the effect of this final action? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES